Stalin wasn't really a conqueror per-se. He killed a lot of his own people more so than destroying a whole race on his way world domination.
We can argue all day, but bottom line is we can go through every culture throughout history and find terrible, evil rulers/conquerors who have left massive body counts for world domination.
But Genghis Kahn is by far the worst. He killed nearly 40 million people, 4 times more than Hitler. In fact, Nazi Germany's blitzkrieg was a modern form of warfare that Genghis Kahn himself developed in 12th and 13th century.

History.... no one really knows it anymore. I'm a junkie for it. Nice to see a fellow addict on the board.

Chris LaPlaca ‏@espn_chris
Following yesterday’s comments, Rob Parker has been suspended until further notice. We are conducting a full review.

SWEET. JUSTICE.

How is this the solution?

How can we have meaningful discussions about race when as soon as someone crosses a perceived line, that speech is silenced?

Parker is ignorant. But he is not a lone voice. His opinions reflect a subculture of the black community. Let his his stupidity see the light of day and be exposed for the ignorance and backward mentality it represents.

Sunlight is the great disinfectant. By squashing the discussion you just let this view fester underground.

How can we have meaningful discussions about race when as soon as someone crosses a perceived line, that speech is silenced?

Parker is ignorant. But he is not a lone voice. His opinions reflect a subculture of the black community. Let his his stupidity see the light of day and be exposed for the ignorance and backward mentality it represents.

Sunlight is the great disinfectant. By squashing the discussion you just let this view fester underground.

This is a great opportunity for people to discuss what it means to be "down with the cause". Telling people they are ignorant doesn't stop them from being ignorant. People should step up. Where is Al Sharpton? Jesse Jackson? Let's discuss the cause and what they mean by it.

Not my list bro.... but I'd hate to get in the way of someone's politically correct historical views that stretch back a whole 250 years However, from my perspective your view of history is both Euro-centric and fairly abbreviated (a lot of history prior to the 1700's ya know).

And in my view, your is unfounded, and you're making a number of false assumptions. Like assuming my point was based in Euro-centrism (despite mentioning Japan in WWII) and not out of an authentic position that Alexander the Great, while Great, was not as Great in the Conquering business as Hitler was, or as Hirohito (or more apt, his millitary) was, or as Stalin and Communism was (albeit far less direct).

The list appears to have a strong ancient bias, where documentation is very very thin (often bordering on legend), claims of army sizes and terretorial gains and control are often wildly overstated, and where War was far less all-encompassing as it is in the more modern mechanized warfare era. Ashoka for example, is not in the same ballpark in almost any quantifyable way (other than lenth of time of rule, of course) to Hitler and the Nazi Reich.

You're not the only one who is rabid for History, bro. You may want to consider that something like "Greatest Conqueror" is a subjective question, for example our obvious disagreement over Stalin as a Conqueror, and my criticism of the list is not a criticism of you personally for having posted the list.

And in my view, your is unfounded, and you're making a number of false assumptions. Like assuming my point was based in Euro-centrism (despite mentioning Japan in WWII) and not out of an authentic position that Alexander the Great, while Great, was not as Great in the Conquering business as Hitler was, or as Hirohito (or more apt, his millitary) was, or as Stalin and Communism was (albeit far less direct).

The list appears to have a stong ancient bias, where documentation is very very thin, claims of army sizes and terretorial gains are often wildly overstated, and where War was far less all-encompassing as it is in the more modern mechanized warfare era. Ashoka for example, is not in the same ballpark in almost any quantifyable way (other than lenth of time of rule, of course) to Hitler and the Nazi Reich.

You're not the only one who is rabid for History, bro. You may want to consider that something like "Greatest Conqueror" is a subjective question, for example our obvious disagreement over Stalin as a Conqueror, and my criticism of the list is not a criticism of you personally for having posted the list.

Got to disagree. Not sure where you get the theory of " wild overstatement" of army size and territorial gains. Alexander the Great was with no dispute among historians considered among the greatest military minds ever. And I'm not sure I understand how war was "far less encompassing" in an age where armies had to travel without planes, trains, trucks, radio communication, or even roads. Alexander the Great conquered, and held, an empire... with horses, elephants, and the like. A much greater feat than an age where any 18 year old boy can be made into a deadly soldier by handing him a rifle or putting him in a Tank.

Hitler, Hirohito, and Napoleon all had very short-lived successes. They basically each started a war and eventually lost that war. Unlike the 3 you point to ATG didn't lose a war. Great Conqueror labels can NOT be given to those that are themselves conquered. It took death to end ATG's reign.

As to Stalin, I never considered him a conqueror of anything. He subjugated his own people.

In fairness, I shouldn have been more specific. I would not remove Alexander from the list specificly, I was just tossing one out to make the point that one could disagree with one on the list, and add another.

If you need a specific one, I'd cite the Indian Emperor Ashoka. I would remove him and put Hitler in his place, based on my rather limited knowledge of his time and empire.

Not sure where you get the theory of " wild overstatement" of army size and territorial gains.

You're an avid reader of history Sonny, and far FAR smarter than I. I know you're aware that the exploits of many of teh pre-AD Empires and leaders are as much legend as they are documented and verified facts. Historians of those times (even through the Roman Empire) often were very non-specific or even strait out fictitious in their histories.

A great example, the Romans defeat of the Caledonains and their leader Calgacus at Mons Graupius is one such tale, told by the historian Tacitus. Tacitus places in Calgacus's mouth a rather noble and Braveheartian speech. The speech is almost surely pure fiction, the mountain (Mons Grapius) cannot be located today, the description of the battle rather thin, and the description of army sizes is commonly beleieved to be quite overstated.

This was in AD 84, in the relatively well-documented Roman Empire. Now, you're not going to tell me Emperors and battles and armies of the 500+ BC were better documented, or more accurate and even-handed in their descriptions, and not equally caught up in their flair for drama and deification of the Emperors they describe, are you?

Objective history that is truly objective is a somewhat recent trend IMO. Historians or ancient times were as much storytellers and propagandists for their leaders as they were historians. Doesn't mean they were wrong, just that one has to factor in that aspect.

Alexander the Great was with no dispute among historians considered among the greatest military minds ever.

Aye, agreed. Like I said, should have cited Ashoka not Alexander in my original post. Wasn't trying to be specific, just expalin why I felt the list was cheapened by ignoring moden war and modern conquorors.

And I'm not sure I understand how war was "far less encompassing" in an age where armies had to travel without planes, trains, trucks, radio communication, or even roads

War in modern times engages every aspect of the Nation States that participate. Total war, with entire populations and economies involved, and mass destruction on scales unfathomable in previous eras. War in ancient times was not so universally encompassing.

Certainly civillian populations could suffer and did suffer (generally selective or universal slavery, some mass killing too of course). But generally, the army sizes were vastly too small to police the empires they took over (later follow-up leaders may have, but the conquorors themselves did not), and civillian populations were less impacted (less being a relative term of course).

Alexander the Great conquered, and held, an empire... with horses, elephants, and the like. A much greater feat than an age where any 18 year old boy can be made into a deadly soldier by handing him a rifle or putting him in a Tank.

Agree to disagree to a very small degree. While he certainly faced a few decently equipped and equitablearmies/opponents in his victories, most of what he conquored was effectively undefended civillian territory, millitarily, with a few very key battles and alot of undefended space. Walking past a village, saying "I own you now" then trotting past without leaving anyone to watch over that village is hardly what I'd call conquoring or even holding.

Hitler, Hirohito, and Napoleon all had very short-lived successes. They basically each started a war and eventually lost that war. Unlike the 3 you point to ATG didn't lose a war. Great Conqueror labels can NOT be given to those that are themselves conquered. It took death to end ATG's reign.

Again, agree to disagree to a small degree. Holding is seperate from conquoring. It took the combined might of the Soviet Union, Great Britan and the United States (and what was left of Poland and France) to defeat Germany, and even then it was only Hitler egotistical blunders that led to defeat. Alexander suffered no equivalent massed-superiors opposition on that level, he took on his opponents one by one on one front geenrally. Unlike Hitler, who took over a completely defeated and unarmed nation, Alexander took over from his father Phillip, no wimp himself, and inherited Phillip's armies, experienced and capable.

As to Stalin, I never considered him a conqueror of anything. He subjugated his own people.

The Poles, Belorussians, Latvians, Ukrainians etc, etc, etc, would beg to differ. All depends on what you consider conquoring and if it has to be purely millitary, or also partly political (or in this case geopolitical, with the allies feeble aquiesence). I'm a little biased on this one, I think generally the U.S. has a very poor understanding of the true evil perpetrated under Stalin frankly.

In fairness, I shouldn have been more specific. I would not remove Alexander from the list specificly, I was just tossing one out to make the point that one could disagree with one on the list, and add another.

If you need a specific one, I'd cite the Indian Emperor Ashoka. I would remove him and put Hitler in his place, based on my rather limited knowledge of his time and empire.

You're an avid reader of history Sonny, and far FAR smarter than I. I know you're aware that the exploits of many of teh pre-AD Empires and leaders are as much legend as they are documented and verified facts. Historians of those times (even through the Roman Empire) often were very non-specific or even strait out fictitious in their histories.

A great example, the Romans defeat of the Caledonains and their leader Calgacus at Mons Graupius is one such tale, told by the historian Tacitus. Tacitus places in Calgacus's mouth a rather noble and Braveheartian speech. The speech is almost surely pure fiction, the mountain (Mons Grapius) cannot be located today, the description of the battle rather thin, and the description of army sizes is commonly beleieved to be quite overstated.

This was in AD 84, in the relatively well-documented Roman Empire. Now, you're not going to tell me Emperors and battles and armies of the 500+ BC were better documented, or more accurate and even-handed in their descriptions, and not equally caught up in their flair for drama and deification of the Emperors they describe, are you?

Objective history that is truly objective is a somewhat recent trend IMO. Historians or ancient times were as much storytellers and propagandists for their leaders as they were historians. Doesn't mean they were wrong, just that one has to factor in that aspect.

Aye, agreed. Like I said, should have cited Ashoka not Alexander in my original post. Wasn't trying to be specific, just expalin why I felt the list was cheapened by ignoring moden war and modern conquorors.

War in modern times engages every aspect of the Nation States that participate. Total war, with entire populations and economies involved, and mass destruction on scales unfathomable in previous eras. War in ancient times was not so universally encompassing.

Certainly civillian populations could suffer and did suffer (generally selective or universal slavery, some mass killing too of course). But generally, the army sizes were vastly too small to police the empires they took over (later follow-up leaders may have, but the conquorors themselves did not), and civillian populations were less impacted (less being a relative term of course).

Agree to disagree to a very small degree. While he certainly faced a few decently equipped and equitablearmies/opponents in his victories, most of what he conquored was effectively undefended civillian territory, millitarily, with a few very key battles and alot of undefended space. Walking past a village, saying "I own you now" then trotting past without leaving anyone to watch over that village is hardly what I'd call conquoring or even holding.

Again, agree to disagree to a small degree. Holding is seperate from conquoring. It took the combined might of the Soviet Union, Great Britan and the United States (and what was left of Poland and France) to defeat Germany, and even then it was only Hitler egotistical blunders that led to defeat. Alexander suffered no equivalent massed-superiors opposition on that level, he took on his opponents one by one on one front geenrally. Unlike Hitler, who took over a completely defeated and unarmed nation, Alexander took over from his father Phillip, no wimp himself, and inherited Phillip's armies, experienced and capable.

The Poles, Belorussians, Latvians, Ukrainians etc, etc, etc, would beg to differ. All depends on what you consider conquoring and if it has to be purely millitary, or also partly political (or in this case geopolitical, with the allies feeble aquiesence). I'm a little biased on this one, I think generally the U.S. has a very poor understanding of the true evil perpetrated under Stalin frankly.

I was a history major in college. That probably means I understand the rise and fall of civilizations a lot better than you. I've studied all manner of revolutions, revolutionary movements, social shifts, political ideology, economic depressions etc.

You probably thought what I said was absurd because if you're not watching football, you're watching Dancing with the Stars or The Voice, which is worthless for giving you any sort of actual insights into anything that matters.

Ethnic divisions are a reality all over the world. Everywhere. They always will be. Always.

It's easy for people like Rob Parker and Jesse Jackson and people of his ilk (who I cannot stand) to constantly race bait and instigate problems when economic times are good, or even in recession, like today, because real people have lives and so nobody cares, but all it takes is a certain perfect storm of real economic problems for the fictional `everyone loves each other` world that exists on television to come crumbling down real fast. If the nation goes completely belly up in the next decade or two, which is a real possibility, I don't think the majority (any majority, of any ethnicity, in any nation) is going to be all that interested in listening to this crap about phony oppression while they're in real trouble, in a breadline, or had their life savings wiped out by a total collapse of the financial system (which isn't something that only happens in black and white footage on the history channel. Economics, if you didn't know, is actually real).

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Be grateful for citizenship. Be grateful for the opportunities of this country. I practice what I preach. You're probably assuming i'm a racist white guy for not being "down with the struggle." The fact is i'm not white at all, i'm just not an entitled little brat that clings to tired old 1960's revolutionary thinking in the 21st century.

White people are nice people. All of my neighbors are white. I get along with them. They get along with me. History also shows, though, that white people, like any other people, are like a sting ray. If you poke them with a stick and keep poking and poking and poking and poking eventually you're going to get a barb put through through your chest. The difference between my people and white people, though, is that when really mad white people do things like drop atomic bombs.

Cool it with the racial stuff.

I live in America. Most Americans are white. I don't antagonize them. I wouldn't if I lived in Japan, or China, or Africa, or Europe, or the Middle East.

You shouldn't either. Not unless your master plan is to convince an ethnic majority that you're their enemy while the dollar is collapsing and the nation is going bankrupt. Didn't work out so well in Germany.

stopped reading at the bold.
Im going to just chalk this long post (TL;DR) up to you letting off a little steam about the absolute lack of real world application of your major...

In fairness, I shouldn have been more specific. I would not remove Alexander from the list specificly, I was just tossing one out to make the point that one could disagree with one on the list, and add another.

If you need a specific one, I'd cite the Indian Emperor Ashoka. I would remove him and put Hitler in his place, based on my rather limited knowledge of his time and empire.

You're an avid reader of history Sonny, and far FAR smarter than I. I know you're aware that the exploits of many of teh pre-AD Empires and leaders are as much legend as they are documented and verified facts. Historians of those times (even through the Roman Empire) often were very non-specific or even strait out fictitious in their histories.

A great example, the Romans defeat of the Caledonains and their leader Calgacus at Mons Graupius is one such tale, told by the historian Tacitus. Tacitus places in Calgacus's mouth a rather noble and Braveheartian speech. The speech is almost surely pure fiction, the mountain (Mons Grapius) cannot be located today, the description of the battle rather thin, and the description of army sizes is commonly beleieved to be quite overstated.

This was in AD 84, in the relatively well-documented Roman Empire. Now, you're not going to tell me Emperors and battles and armies of the 500+ BC were better documented, or more accurate and even-handed in their descriptions, and not equally caught up in their flair for drama and deification of the Emperors they describe, are you?

Objective history that is truly objective is a somewhat recent trend IMO. Historians or ancient times were as much storytellers and propagandists for their leaders as they were historians. Doesn't mean they were wrong, just that one has to factor in that aspect.

Aye, agreed. Like I said, should have cited Ashoka not Alexander in my original post. Wasn't trying to be specific, just expalin why I felt the list was cheapened by ignoring moden war and modern conquorors.

War in modern times engages every aspect of the Nation States that participate. Total war, with entire populations and economies involved, and mass destruction on scales unfathomable in previous eras. War in ancient times was not so universally encompassing.

Certainly civillian populations could suffer and did suffer (generally selective or universal slavery, some mass killing too of course). But generally, the army sizes were vastly too small to police the empires they took over (later follow-up leaders may have, but the conquorors themselves did not), and civillian populations were less impacted (less being a relative term of course).

Agree to disagree to a very small degree. While he certainly faced a few decently equipped and equitablearmies/opponents in his victories, most of what he conquored was effectively undefended civillian territory, millitarily, with a few very key battles and alot of undefended space. Walking past a village, saying "I own you now" then trotting past without leaving anyone to watch over that village is hardly what I'd call conquoring or even holding.

Again, agree to disagree to a small degree. Holding is seperate from conquoring. It took the combined might of the Soviet Union, Great Britan and the United States (and what was left of Poland and France) to defeat Germany, and even then it was only Hitler egotistical blunders that led to defeat. Alexander suffered no equivalent massed-superiors opposition on that level, he took on his opponents one by one on one front geenrally. Unlike Hitler, who took over a completely defeated and unarmed nation, Alexander took over from his father Phillip, no wimp himself, and inherited Phillip's armies, experienced and capable.

The Poles, Belorussians, Latvians, Ukrainians etc, etc, etc, would beg to differ. All depends on what you consider conquoring and if it has to be purely millitary, or also partly political (or in this case geopolitical, with the allies feeble aquiesence). I'm a little biased on this one, I think generally the U.S. has a very poor understanding of the true evil perpetrated under Stalin frankly.

Good points all. As you note, a lot subjectivity involved here. But I really can't get by one thing. I really think if you are defeated, you forfeit consideration as a great conqueror. For example, you point to Hitler's "egotistical blunders" as costing him the war. C'mon, can you really be great if you are prone to "egotistical blunders". It's kinda like saying Mark Sanchez is a Great Quarterback prone to "brain farts".

This clown clearly is jealous that he isnt RG3, cause if he was , he would swag like Iverson, thats what i get out of his mumbo jumbo.
He is representing his race in a positive fashion not a 'white way' and one of his own has to publicly call him out for not being thuggish? As if thats the way the elders who suffered for their civil rights want the race to be represented.

Originally Posted by bgivs21 View Post
Stalin wasn't really a conqueror per-se. He killed a lot of his own people more so than destroying a whole race on his way world domination.
We can argue all day, but bottom line is we can go through every culture throughout history and find terrible, evil rulers/conquerors who have left massive body counts for world domination.
But Genghis Kahn is by far the worst. He killed nearly 40 million people, 4 times more than Hitler. In fact, Nazi Germany's blitzkrieg was a modern form of warfare that Genghis Kahn himself developed in 12th and 13th century.

Have no idea who Genghis Kahn is but if you're referring to the great Khan, Temujin, also know as Genghis Khan,estimates range from 20 to 50 million, depending on which historical lense you use.

Stalin ,on the other hand, has been identified as the greatest mass murderer of the modern era with a known body count of twenty six million and a probable figure exceeding SIXTY million.

Temujin was a warrior living in a violent era of tribal conflict. He slaughtered whole tribes as a means of bringing some semblance of order to the chaos of the era.This is genocide by any standard, but before he brought order there was an untold era of indiscriminate tribal warfare that ran up body cvounts in the hundreds of millions in Central Asia.

Stalin was a mass murderer....far greater than Adolph Hitler. He committed genocide to enforce his own tyrannical powerbase. Pure evil.

I've been an amateur atrocity buff for years like you and Sonny....here's a very good read, well researched, that covers a lot of ground in the genre...